Contents

According to proponents of this principle, the "[preferential] option for the poor" refers to a trend, throughout the Judeo-ChristianBible, of preference being given to the well-being of the poor and powerless of society in the teachings and commands of God as well as the prophets and other righteous people. Jesus taught that on the Day of Judgment, God will ask what each person did to help the poor and needy: "Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me."[2] This is reflected in Catholic canon law, which states, "The Christian faithful are also obliged to promote social justice and, mindful of the precept of the Lord, to assist the poor."[3]

According to said doctrine, through one's words, prayers and deeds one must show solidarity with, and compassion for, the poor. Therefore, when instituting public policy one must always keep the "preferential option for the poor" at the forefront of one's mind. Accordingly, this doctrine implies that the moral test of any society is "how it treats its most vulnerable members. The poor have the most urgent moral claim on the conscience of the nation. We are called to look at public policy decisions in terms of how they affect the poor.".[4]

Pope Benedict XVI has taught that “love for widows and orphans, prisoners, and the sick and needy of every kind, is as essential as the ministry of the sacraments and preaching of the Gospel”.[5] This preferential option for the poor and vulnerable includes all who are marginalized in society, including unborn children, persons with disabilities, the elderly and terminally ill, and victims of injustice and oppression.

The phrase "option for the poor" was used by Fr. Pedro Arrupe, Superior General of the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) in 1968 in a letter to the Jesuits of Latin America.

It became a focus of the World Synod of Catholic Bishops in 1971, when in their synodal letter they declared that "Action on behalf of justice and participation in the transformation of the world fully appear to us as a constitutive dimension of the preaching of the Gospel, or, in other words, of the Church's mission for the redemption of the human race and its liberation from every oppressive situation."[6]

But the principle behind the phrase was articulated earlier by the Catholic Bishops at the Second Vatican Council, when in their Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes they spoke of the poor from the very first line, repeating the word nine times and concluding: "The council, considering the immensity of the hardships which still afflict the greater part of mankind today, regards it as most opportune that an organism of the universal Church be set up in order that both the justice and love of Christ toward the poor might be developed everywhere."[8]

Pope Francis's apostolic exhortation Evangelii gaudium includes a long section on "The inclusion of the poor in society" (186-216) in which he noted that "Without the preferential option for the poor, 'the proclamation of the Gospel … risks being misunderstood or submerged'."[10]

In its origins, the concept was connected with the liberation theology movement of the mid-20th century. As a developed theological principle, the option for the poor was first articulated by Fr. Gustavo Gutiérrez, O.P. in his landmark work, A Theology of Liberation (1971). Gutiérrez asserts that the principle is rooted in both the Old and New Testaments and claims that a preferential concern for the physical and spiritual welfare of the poor is an essential element of the Gospel.

In the mid-1980s, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who later became Pope Benedict XVI, led the effort by the Holy See to stop liberation theology, which he viewed as a form of Marxism. In August 1984, shortly before the release of the official view of the Holy See, he strongly criticized several arguments of liberation theology in a private document to theologians leaked to the press.[11] Ratzinger believed that liberation theologians contend that Christians must engage in a class struggle (in the Marxist sense) in the present to break down the gulf between rich and poor.[citation needed] As summarized by Cardinal Ratzinger, "The biblical concept of the poor provides a starting point for fusing the Bible's view of history with marxist dialectic; it is interpreted by the idea of the proletariat in the marxist sense and thus justifies marxism as the legitimate hermeneutics for understanding the Bible."[11]

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (of which Ratzinger was the Prefect) formulated the official Vatican view in "Instruction on Certain Aspects of the 'Theology of Liberation'". Its "limited and precise purpose: to draw the attention of pastors, theologians, and all the faithful to the deviations, and risks of deviation, damaging to the faith and to Christian living, that are brought about by certain forms of liberation theology which use, in an insufficiently critical manner, concepts borrowed from various currents of Marxist thought." The Instruction elaborated that it was not a disavowal of people who were responding to "the 'preferential option for the poor.' It should not at all serve as an excuse for those who maintain the attitude of neutrality and indifference in the face of the tragic and pressing problems of human misery and injustice."[12]

The Instruction implied that some liberation theologians supported methods similar to the deprivation of people's freedoms by totalitarian regimes in the name of liberation. It charged that these supporters "betray the very poor they mean to help."[13]

Jesuit theologian Enrique Nardoni has argued at length in his exhaustive study, Rise Up, O Judge, that the Bible as a whole and its cultural context support a preferential option for the poor.[14]

^Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Prefect) (6 Aug 1984). "By the same token, the overthrow by means of revolutionary violence of structures which generate violence is not ipso facto the beginning of a just regime. A major fact of our time ought to evoke the reflection of all those who would sincerely work for the true liberation of their brothers: millions of our own contemporaries legitimately yearn to recover those basic freedoms of which they were deprived by totalitarian and atheistic regimes which came to power by violent and revolutionary means, precisely in the name of the liberation of the people. This shame of our time cannot be ignored: while claiming to bring them freedom, these regimes keep whole nations in conditions of servitude which are unworthy of mankind. Those who, perhaps inadvertently, make themselves accomplices of similar enslavements betray the very poor they mean to help."